If you are in a car and are attack you have the same self defense rights as if you were at your house. Something similar happened at a BLM protest in texas with predictable results.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12239517/garrett-foster-black-...

So you could conveniently drive around in a bubble of ‘right to self defense’

This guy you’re referencing here had a violent past and it’s possible that he was looking for confrontation. Believe what you may but a young man is no longer with us. I don’t buy this self defense blanket

>So you could conveniently drive around in a bubble of ‘right to self defense’

Yes that is how self defense works.

The driver was an Uber driver who made a wrong turn and was mobbed by people, one of who pulled an ak-47 and pointed at him.

In most states you are allowed to use deadly force if you reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or another.

Situations like this are exactly what these laws are written for.

Doesn't matter how many priors you have. Even here in Norway - where you're barely allowed to look at a gun - if some random person points an AK47 at you, then you're allowed to defend yourself with a "reasonable response". Tell me, what do you consider a "reasonable response" to being threatened with an AK47? Yeah, that's what I thought!

Hell, it doesn't even matter if you're in a car or not. Or would you be ok with someone randomly pointing an AK47 at you? Would you refrain from using deadly force against someone like that, just because you had priors?

There is no evidence pointing the victim pointed the gun at the suspect. At the moment you choose to take their word which indicates your bias. I lean on the victim’s side though I respect your right to believe what you want.

> At the moment you choose to take their word which indicates your bias.

No, not really. I'm talking about principles.

If a guy acts threatening towards you, then you're allowed to defend yourself.

If a guy holds a gun, and throws aggressive slurs at you while approaching, do you agree that it's a really threatening thing to do? Would you wait for the obviously threatening guy to raise his gun, or just shoot him before he ever gets to that point?

> There is no evidence pointing the victim pointed the gun at the suspect.

Is there evidence that he didn't?

Honestly, does it even matter? When some guy starts acting threatening while holding a gun, are you going to wait until he points it at you before defending yourself? Cuz you won't get a second chance, mate. You either make him a "victim" of your right to self defene, or you die. I'd rather survive to spend some time in jail, or die because of poorly thought out ideas about victimhood.